Didn't seem like it. The people who wanted it canceled, are the same people who at the time adamantly insisted that it would not lead to war, and who championed the war when it came.
Syria is operating at our behest.
No kidding. But you talked about the decline of Al Qaeda.
Piracy like around the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea.
Iran did that? Give me an example.
Just because "you had no business being there" is your argument against US military intervention, it doesn't mean that if those forces are somewhere, that Iran has the right to hunt them down and kill them, then take over the country for themselves.
Considering that the US government uses murderous insurgencies as an ordinary tool of statecraft, it can hardly cry "TERRISM" when someone else does it.
In the Marine Barracks Bombing, US troops were invited there as a peacekeeping force to prevent Lebanon from descending to a Civil War
There is always a noble cover for raw Realpolitk, so I don't believe this for a moment. That said, American interests clearly weren't great or you wouldn't have cut and run.
Furthermore, admitting arguendo that it was Hezbollah and that Hezbollah was acting on Iran's behalf, this clearly didn't stop you from sending weapons to Iran later on in the very same decade, so you can hardly use this as a justification for another war decades later - like the US did for Iraq gassing the Kurds with American chemical weapons 15 years later.
They were killed, needlessly, because the Iranians were invading Lebanon with proxy forces, and intended to take over the country.
Take over the country? I haven't seen any evidence for that. I'll also point out that the bombing occurred in 1983. This was after Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 - it only withdrew in 2000 or so.
Yes, Iran is absolutely the worse offender because the Ayatollah is an occupying government over the Persians,
To use 'occupation' in this sense is to strip the word of its meaning. Also, even if he were, this has absolutely no bearing on whether actions by the US or Iran are more responsible for causing the enmity between the two countries.
and then decided to wage a multinational war for regional dominance.
The Americans didn't want Iran to get a nuclear bomb, excluding the Obama admin. I don't see your complaint here.
The Houthis are an example of Iranian backed piracy. Why are you acting like forces operating on behalf of Iran have nothing to do with it? Same thing with Hezbollah and Lebanon.
I don't care that the US also promotes insurgencies, there's effectively a war with Iran.
I agree we shouldn't have sold weapons to Iran, just like we shouldn't have given them retarded amounts of money either. That doesn't make them good, or us not effectively in a permanent state of conflict with them.
It's not a stretch to call an Arab Islamist coup over the government, then slaughtering a horde of it's population, and then repressing them to keep the population in control is still within the allowable definition of an occupation.
The Americans didn't want Iran to get a nuclear bomb, excluding the Obama admin.
Well, guess what will lead Iran to getting a nuclear bomb. Bombing them and threatening them. Why do you think people want nukes? Regardless, Iran didn't even want nukes, it wanted to be a nuclear threshold state - and even that only because the US and Israel were threatening it.
The Houthis are an example of Iranian backed piracy
That's quite interesting. Leaving aside if this is piracy or a blockade. You pinned piracy on Iran, suggested that it was Iran itself that engaged in it, now it's by someone who is "Iran-backed". I'm not sure you want to go there, or should we look at what the US government has backed? Using chemical weapons on civilians, among other things, and that's not even leaving the Iran topic.
Why are you acting like forces operating on behalf of Iran have nothing to do with it?
Because they're not "operating on behalf of Iran". They're operating on behalf of themselves, and Iran is helping them because they help serve Iranian interests. Iran isn't giving orders. You may assume that all countries have the same relation as the US does with Ukraine or with Syria's Al Qaeda, but that is not the case.
I don't care that the US also promotes insurgencies, there's effectively a war with Iran.
So you get all morally outraged over allegations of Iran "backing insurgencies", while having no problem at all when the US does it?
And if there's effectively a war between US and Iran, that justifies them backing insurgencies.
I agree we shouldn't have sold weapons to Iran, just like we shouldn't have given them retarded amounts of money either. That doesn't make them good, or us not effectively in a permanent state of conflict with them.
Giving them weapons is the literal definition of not being in a permanent state of conflict. Regardless, what I'm arguing is that if there is conflict, it's mostly the fault of the deep state and only minimally Iran's fault.
It's not a stretch to call an Arab Islamist coup over the government, then slaughtering a horde of it's population, and then repressing them to keep the population in control is still within the allowable definition of an occupation.
Very much a stretch, even if the rulers were "Arabs", which they are not. And no, this ridiculous talking point comes from the likes of FDD and is intended to create a false equivalency with other countries that actually are occupying countries.
Even in the event that Iran was not in a conflict with the US, the fact that Israel had a nuke would be more than enough for the Irans to develop nukes. Then again, if Israel didn't have one, the fact that they would be the first to get one to establish nuclear hegemony would be enough reason.
I disagree that Iran's proxies are not operating on behalf of Iran when they created them, supply them, fund them, and co-ordinate with them.
I'm not getting upset, I'm saying that Iran is an enemy state to the US. I'm saying that the US and Iran are in direct conflict with one another, and this isn't just evil America cyber-bullying Iran.
One of the reasons the deep-state keeps fighting with Iran is because Iran never decided to make any deals with the deep state. Iran is an active threat to US interests, not only Israel, but Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, etc. They want regional dominance.
Even in the event that Iran was not in a conflict with the US, the fact that Israel had a nuke would be more than enough for the Irans to develop nukes
Why isn't Jordan developing nukes? Or Egypt? Because even though Israel has nukes, it's in a modus vivendi with them and not directly seeking conflict.
Then again, if Israel didn't have one, the fact that they would be the first to get one to establish nuclear hegemony would be enough reason.
If other countries follow Israel, maybe it wasn't a very smart thing to do after all. It's like India-Pakistan, where India's conventional military superiority has been vitiated by getting nukes, which led Pakistan to get nukes.
I disagree that Iran's proxies are not operating on behalf of Iran when they created them, supply them, fund them, and co-ordinate with them.
You think an entire sect of Shi'ite Islam in Yemen was created by Iran? This is not a serious argument. Somehow, you forget that people and groups operate in their own interests, when the subject turns to Iran?
I'm not getting upset, I'm saying that Iran is an enemy state to the US. I'm saying that the US and Iran are in direct conflict with one another, and this isn't just evil America cyber-bullying Iran.
Who said anything about 'evil America'? Iran has done plenty wrong. You have not yet mentioned the embassy hostages, probably because you are not a boomer. But your argument fails in that you point to Iran's actions as the cause of the conflict, while ignoring what the USG has done to Iran.
One of the reasons the deep-state keeps fighting with Iran is because Iran never decided to make any deals with the deep state. Iran is an active threat to US interests, not only Israel, but Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, etc. They want regional dominance.
Well, they tried several times. And maybe they would not have come through in the end, as it stands, it has been the US to sabotage a deal with Iran.
Didn't seem like it. The people who wanted it canceled, are the same people who at the time adamantly insisted that it would not lead to war, and who championed the war when it came.
No kidding. But you talked about the decline of Al Qaeda.
Iran did that? Give me an example.
Considering that the US government uses murderous insurgencies as an ordinary tool of statecraft, it can hardly cry "TERRISM" when someone else does it.
There is always a noble cover for raw Realpolitk, so I don't believe this for a moment. That said, American interests clearly weren't great or you wouldn't have cut and run.
Furthermore, admitting arguendo that it was Hezbollah and that Hezbollah was acting on Iran's behalf, this clearly didn't stop you from sending weapons to Iran later on in the very same decade, so you can hardly use this as a justification for another war decades later - like the US did for Iraq gassing the Kurds with American chemical weapons 15 years later.
Take over the country? I haven't seen any evidence for that. I'll also point out that the bombing occurred in 1983. This was after Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 - it only withdrew in 2000 or so.
To use 'occupation' in this sense is to strip the word of its meaning. Also, even if he were, this has absolutely no bearing on whether actions by the US or Iran are more responsible for causing the enmity between the two countries.
Iran hasn't invaded a country in 250 years.
The Americans didn't want Iran to get a nuclear bomb, excluding the Obama admin. I don't see your complaint here.
The Houthis are an example of Iranian backed piracy. Why are you acting like forces operating on behalf of Iran have nothing to do with it? Same thing with Hezbollah and Lebanon.
I don't care that the US also promotes insurgencies, there's effectively a war with Iran.
I agree we shouldn't have sold weapons to Iran, just like we shouldn't have given them retarded amounts of money either. That doesn't make them good, or us not effectively in a permanent state of conflict with them.
It's not a stretch to call an Arab Islamist coup over the government, then slaughtering a horde of it's population, and then repressing them to keep the population in control is still within the allowable definition of an occupation.
Well, guess what will lead Iran to getting a nuclear bomb. Bombing them and threatening them. Why do you think people want nukes? Regardless, Iran didn't even want nukes, it wanted to be a nuclear threshold state - and even that only because the US and Israel were threatening it.
That's quite interesting. Leaving aside if this is piracy or a blockade. You pinned piracy on Iran, suggested that it was Iran itself that engaged in it, now it's by someone who is "Iran-backed". I'm not sure you want to go there, or should we look at what the US government has backed? Using chemical weapons on civilians, among other things, and that's not even leaving the Iran topic.
Because they're not "operating on behalf of Iran". They're operating on behalf of themselves, and Iran is helping them because they help serve Iranian interests. Iran isn't giving orders. You may assume that all countries have the same relation as the US does with Ukraine or with Syria's Al Qaeda, but that is not the case.
So you get all morally outraged over allegations of Iran "backing insurgencies", while having no problem at all when the US does it?
And if there's effectively a war between US and Iran, that justifies them backing insurgencies.
Giving them weapons is the literal definition of not being in a permanent state of conflict. Regardless, what I'm arguing is that if there is conflict, it's mostly the fault of the deep state and only minimally Iran's fault.
Very much a stretch, even if the rulers were "Arabs", which they are not. And no, this ridiculous talking point comes from the likes of FDD and is intended to create a false equivalency with other countries that actually are occupying countries.
Even in the event that Iran was not in a conflict with the US, the fact that Israel had a nuke would be more than enough for the Irans to develop nukes. Then again, if Israel didn't have one, the fact that they would be the first to get one to establish nuclear hegemony would be enough reason.
I disagree that Iran's proxies are not operating on behalf of Iran when they created them, supply them, fund them, and co-ordinate with them.
I'm not getting upset, I'm saying that Iran is an enemy state to the US. I'm saying that the US and Iran are in direct conflict with one another, and this isn't just evil America cyber-bullying Iran.
One of the reasons the deep-state keeps fighting with Iran is because Iran never decided to make any deals with the deep state. Iran is an active threat to US interests, not only Israel, but Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, etc. They want regional dominance.
Why isn't Jordan developing nukes? Or Egypt? Because even though Israel has nukes, it's in a modus vivendi with them and not directly seeking conflict.
If other countries follow Israel, maybe it wasn't a very smart thing to do after all. It's like India-Pakistan, where India's conventional military superiority has been vitiated by getting nukes, which led Pakistan to get nukes.
You think an entire sect of Shi'ite Islam in Yemen was created by Iran? This is not a serious argument. Somehow, you forget that people and groups operate in their own interests, when the subject turns to Iran?
Who said anything about 'evil America'? Iran has done plenty wrong. You have not yet mentioned the embassy hostages, probably because you are not a boomer. But your argument fails in that you point to Iran's actions as the cause of the conflict, while ignoring what the USG has done to Iran.
Well, they tried several times. And maybe they would not have come through in the end, as it stands, it has been the US to sabotage a deal with Iran.